Stephen A Deppen1, Eric Liu2, Jeffrey D Blume3, Jeffrey Clanton4, Chanjuan Shi5, Laurie B Jones-Jackson4, Vipul Lakhani6, Richard P Baum7, Jordan Berlin8, Gary T Smith9, Michael Graham10, Martin P Sandler4, Dominique Delbeke4, Ronald C Walker11. 1. Veterans Affairs Hospital, Tennessee Valley VA Healthcare System, Nashville, Tennessee Department of Thoracic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 2. Rocky Mountain Cancer Centers, Denver, Colorado. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 4. Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 5. Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 6. Oregon Medical Group, Springfield, Oregon. 7. THERANOSTICS Center for Molecular Radiotherapy and Molecular Imaging (PET/CT), ENETS Center of Excellence, Zentralklinik Bad Berka, Bad Berka, Germany. 8. Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tennessee; and. 9. Veterans Affairs Hospital, Tennessee Valley VA Healthcare System, Nashville, Tennessee Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 10. Department of Radiology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. 11. Veterans Affairs Hospital, Tennessee Valley VA Healthcare System, Nashville, Tennessee Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tennessee; and ronald.walker@vanderbilt.edu.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Our purpose was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT compared with (111)In-pentetreotide imaging for diagnosis, staging, and restaging of pulmonary and gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. METHODS: (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT and (111)In-pentetreotide scans were obtained for 78 of 97 consecutively enrolled patients with known or suspected pulmonary or gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Safety and toxicity were measured by comparing vital signs, serum chemistry values, or acquisition-related medical complications before and after (68)Ga-DOTATATE injection. Added value was determined by changes in treatment plan when (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT results were added to all prior imaging, including (111)In-pentetreotide. Interobserver reproducibility of (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT scan interpretation was measured between blinded and nonblinded interpreters. RESULTS: (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT and (111)In-pentetreotide scans were significantly different in impact on treatment (P < 0.001). (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT combined with CT or liver MRI changed care in 28 of 78 (36%) patients. Interobserver agreement between blinded and nonblinded interpreters was high. No participant had a trial-related event requiring treatment. Mild, transient events were tachycardia in 1, alanine transaminase elevation in 1, and hyperglycemia in 2 participants. No clinically significant arrhythmias occurred. (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT correctly identified 3 patients for peptide-receptor radiotherapy incorrectly classified by (111)In-pentetreotide. CONCLUSION: (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT was equivalent or superior to (111)In-pentetreotide imaging in all 78 patients. No adverse events requiring treatment were observed. (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT changed treatment in 36% of participants. Given the lack of significant toxicity, lower radiation exposure, and improved accuracy compared with (111)In-pentetreotide, (68)Ga-DOTATATE imaging should be used instead of (111)In-pentetreotide imaging where available.
UNLABELLED: Our purpose was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT compared with (111)In-pentetreotide imaging for diagnosis, staging, and restaging of pulmonary and gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. METHODS: (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT and (111)In-pentetreotide scans were obtained for 78 of 97 consecutively enrolled patients with known or suspected pulmonary or gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Safety and toxicity were measured by comparing vital signs, serum chemistry values, or acquisition-related medical complications before and after (68)Ga-DOTATATE injection. Added value was determined by changes in treatment plan when (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT results were added to all prior imaging, including (111)In-pentetreotide. Interobserver reproducibility of (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT scan interpretation was measured between blinded and nonblinded interpreters. RESULTS: (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT and (111)In-pentetreotide scans were significantly different in impact on treatment (P < 0.001). (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT combined with CT or liver MRI changed care in 28 of 78 (36%) patients. Interobserver agreement between blinded and nonblinded interpreters was high. No participant had a trial-related event requiring treatment. Mild, transient events were tachycardia in 1, alanine transaminase elevation in 1, and hyperglycemia in 2 participants. No clinically significant arrhythmias occurred. (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT correctly identified 3 patients for peptide-receptor radiotherapy incorrectly classified by (111)In-pentetreotide. CONCLUSION: (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT was equivalent or superior to (111)In-pentetreotide imaging in all 78 patients. No adverse events requiring treatment were observed. (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT changed treatment in 36% of participants. Given the lack of significant toxicity, lower radiation exposure, and improved accuracy compared with (111)In-pentetreotide, (68)Ga-DOTATATE imaging should be used instead of (111)In-pentetreotide imaging where available.
Authors: H R Balon; S J Goldsmith; B A Siegel; E B Silberstein; E P Krenning; O Lang; K J Donohoe Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Michael Gabriel; Clemens Decristoforo; Dorota Kendler; Georg Dobrozemsky; Dirk Heute; Christian Uprimny; Peter Kovacs; Elisabeth Von Guggenberg; Reto Bale; Irene J Virgolini Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: F L Giesel; C Kratochwil; A Mehndiratta; S Wulfert; J H Moltz; C M Zechmann; H U Kauczor; U Haberkorn; S Ley Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2012-01-10 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Clarisse Dromain; Thierry de Baere; Jean Lumbroso; Hubert Caillet; Agnès Laplanche; Valerie Boige; Michel Ducreux; Pierre Duvillard; Dominique Elias; Martin Schlumberger; Robert Sigal; Eric Baudin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-01-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: E P Krenning; D J Kwekkeboom; W H Bakker; W A Breeman; P P Kooij; H Y Oei; M van Hagen; P T Postema; M de Jong; J C Reubi Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Date: 1993-08
Authors: Martyn E Caplin; Marianne Pavel; Jarosław B Ćwikła; Alexandria T Phan; Markus Raderer; Eva Sedláčková; Guillaume Cadiot; Edward M Wolin; Jaume Capdevila; Lucy Wall; Guido Rindi; Alison Langley; Séverine Martinez; Joëlle Blumberg; Philippe Ruszniewski Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-07-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: A Chiti; S Fanti; G Savelli; A Romeo; B Bellanova; M Rodari; B J van Graafeiland; N Monetti; E Bombardieri Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Date: 1998-10
Authors: Chenue Abongwa; Sarah Mott; Blanca Schafer; Parren McNeely; Ghada Abusin; Thomas O'Dorisio; Gideon Zamba; M Sue O'Dorisio; Yusuf Menda Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-11-01
Authors: Sanjiv S Gambhir; Lalitha K Shankar; Eben Rosenthal; Jason M Warram; Munir Ghesani; Thomas A Hope; Paula M Jacobs; Gunilla B Jacobson; Terri Wilson; Barry A Siegel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-03-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Wolfgang Peter Fendler; Martin Barrio; Claudio Spick; Martin Allen-Auerbach; Valentina Ambrosini; Matthias Benz; Christina Bluemel; Ravinder Kaur Grewal; Constantin Lapa; Matthias Miederer; Guillaume Nicolas; Tibor Schuster; Johannes Czernin; Ken Herrmann Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-08-18 Impact factor: 10.057